first December 2010
Deal in Danger - Opponents make worm / baptism on 19 12. prevent
It could all be so simple - it is for the youth office of Munster but not, the unmarried father of two children on 23 June 2010 it applied for sole custody of his son, in return, he agreed to accept that his daughter is in a foster family. But the mother resisted, until now there is no final Decision.
For the current legal battle that the court of Munster has appointed a curator ad litem, which is now supposed to talk to all parties. Power they do not. The child's father puts in a written report to the court of Munster, the words in his mouth, he was Commissioner internet suspect.
Since it is logical that this process has also nurse in writing to the Higher Regional Court of Hamm. In an urgent application, it called on 29 November 2010, that the child's mother "escape right of religious exercise for the children ..." it was. So she laid down a crash landing. The Higher Regional Court Hamm saw no urgency this application.
Commissioner internet is still interested in the establishment of this application. Which begins: "The moral and spiritual welfare of the children are in danger, the child's mother plans to be baptized the children on 19 12th 2010 ...." This will take place in a Catholic church. And provides an emotional and mental threat to children?
goes so far as the curator ad litem, of course, but she goes so far enough, because this sentence completed it by noting that Commissioner was to the Internet "may godfather" as. To have the child's mother allegedly met over the Internet. "
you know it: evil uncle do on the net approach to children? Whether the procedures attendant has meant? Further in the text. The second page is filled with further allegations.
Claim 1: "The operation of the child's mother is a child harm." Because Commissioner internet a dog and is baptized a Protestant? Absolutely not. The procedures nurse writes that Commissioner Internet "to the children is completely foreign." Feat. The Youth Office of Munster and the Family Court of Münster have prevented up to now that there is an encounter. To specific requests they have so far not simply react.
The curator ad litem has even more in stock. These include: Internet Commissioner would only include "tactical procedures Reasons "..? Godfather of the two children to the welfare of the children he have in mind not what distinguishes so commissioner Internet from the youth office of Munster
Strong stuff is this sentence:" The children are already the basis of family events in the past severely damaged. "That's why she has raved the Family Court of Munster on the same day in the aforementioned document from the magnificent development of the boys, and a matron is for this reason the girl good written to the witness? And this also a few days ago?
Clear edge is different. And what happens when Commissioner asking the Internet's guardian to to substantiate their claims? Nothing! At least until today. Although Commissioner Internet in a process that on 10 December 2010, the Family Court in Münster takes place, is party to the proceedings! In addition, this method omits
nurse that there are two other godfathers. Accidentally? yet this is not done: In the emergency petition is that the youth department of Munster "the right to religious freedom" should be transferred. For God's sake!
Dear God, believe in all world religions, but is unlikely to be in agreement that the siblings of the youth office of Münster have been separated.
The Higher Regional Court of Hamm, thank with their desires is the curator ad litem failed only once.
Ujamaa in Münster
A lawyer from Münster
16th December 2010
you Can such an incompetent out bowling youth ministry?
letter to Administrative Court of Münster
The Youth Office of Muenster is from by family court decisions 24th September 2009 and of 18 was March 2010 (Ref. 57 F 201/09) intended to supplement caregiver. In fact, individuals in addition nurses are preferred (§ 1915 para 1 in conjunction with § 1779 BGB). Such proposals of the child's mother have always been ignored.
the § § 16-18 SGB VIII, according to the Youth Welfare Office is obliged to support a family and to help her. This is according to the Family Court's decision did not happen. In order for the youth of the City of Münster not only to § 16 to 18 SGB VIII had failed to comply, but also the Civil Code § § 1684 and 1685. It resulted from the table that Mr. T. submitted work with the youth office of the Administrative Court of Münster, also shows no single measure that is directed toward the common good of the children and both parents.
consistently pursues the youth office of Münster these goals: the child's father get sole custody of J., N. the current readiness foster mother taken away and placed in a foster family. This would lead to a permanent separation of siblings who can not in the best interests of both children to be relevant. Pursuing these goals without a final court decision.
Any action which is contrary to the will, torpedoed by the Youth Office of Munster. Thus, on 10 December 2010 proceedings before the Family Court in Münster place in which it went about my rights as a godfather dealing with two children (Ref. 57 F 198/10). The two children were on 19 December 2010 in the English are baptized Catholic Mission by Rev. A.. For the two children would have not only given me as a godfather, but also two godmother who do not only active in the community ... (a godmother is a mother herself, the other godmother works as an educational aid)
And what does the youth department staff responsible T.? He can apologize and send a completely uninformed associate to this transaction. The comes with a written statement of the Youth Office of Munster, from not even a sufficient number of copies has been made for the parties. Verbally explains this co-worker: "We have nothing against the baptism." My application for handling contacts before baptism will rejected.
The written reasons for their refusal to know, neither the child's mother nor I. Re doing the Youth Office of Munster nothing for the family, which is under the special protection of the constitution. The youth office not only failed to complement nurses, but also as the authority would have the sense of § § 16-18 SGB VIII long to be active.
should the Youth Office of Munster so urgently be replaced as a supplement caregiver if the Hamm Court in a pending written procedure Az II-13 UF 83/10 should decide against the child's mother, especially since in this case nothing has been done by individuals to include all eligible persons from the family to help. All parental rights have been violated (§ 1776 BGB), the first find in § 1791 b BGB their limits.
people who want to make to § 1685 Civil Code as an aid available to be stopped or ignored. This experience made even the grandmother of two children who came specially from Costa Rica to Germany. Visit the contacts of the child's mother with N. have been re-frozen, even though the employees of this agency to the Administrative Court of Münster T. otherwise assured in writing. This too is a proof that it is at the Youth Office of Munster is a totally unsuitable supplementary nurse.
Finally, it should be permitted to observe that the child's mother yesterday against the child's father M. complaint wegen "leichter Körperverletzung" gestellt hat, weil sie am Mittwoch bei einem Besuch festgestellt hat, dass der Kindesvater auch dann in der Wohnung kifft, wenn die Tür zum Kinderzimmer offen steht.
Es wird um richterlichen Hinweis gebeten, falls noch notwendige Angaben zu möglichen Verfahrens- und Rechtsfehlern fehlen sollten.
